Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right. …show more content…
There are sound points to each side’s argument with assisted suicide, and both should be heavily considered. First, there are those who agree with assisted suicide, arguing that a person should have the choice to end one’s own life, to end one’s prolonged pain and suffering. According to Soo Borson, terminally ill diseases like dementia and Alzheimer 's kill, but very slowly and rob a person of their mind long before their body is physically ready to die. Once that happens to the patient, the path is filled with great anguish for the one’s around the patient as well. Personally, I have lived with two grandparents suffering from dementia, and one who suffered with both lung cancer and dementia. It is a sad sight to see how their minds faded and how the disease caused both grandparents to change into people I couldn’t even recognize anymore. According to Andre and Velasquez, medicine and technology have allowed people to live longer lives, but have also allowed people …show more content…
The authors of “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" say that allowing people to assist in killing and destroying lives, along with devaluing human life, in a society that swears to protect and preserve all life, violates the fundamental moral society has to respect all human life. Once we devalue life, and say a certain quality of life isn’t worth living for a person, where will it stop? If assisted suicide is allowed for the terminally ill, society will start to accept and even presume that those with terminally ill conditions should end their life. The start of this divide assisted suicide can create is exemplified by Ben Mattlin. Mattlin has an incurable disease called spinal muscular atrophy. He was not expected to live into adulthood, yet has survived and now has two children of his own. “I could easily convince anyone that suicide is a rational option for me...and that scares me. Why shouldn’t I have the same barriers protecting me from moments of suicidal fantasies as everyone else has?” (Mattlin). This stresses the danger, as a society, that is posed to those with terminal conditions who want to live. Assisted suicide though seems to almost encourage ill people to end their lives. This is emphasized in the article “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?", explaining that if assisted suicide is legalized on the basis of compassion and mercy that society could start assisting “and
Assisted suicide is becoming increasingly more common. Arguing the topic is extremely hard because it means the the life or death of a human being. Today, assisted suicide is legal in multiple countries, but only a few states in the US support this. Therefore, creates a struggle for any person wanting to go through this process. Being this is a broad topic, most people are torn between one side, I personally believe there should be a compromise in between the middle. For instance, not just someone going through a troublesome time in their life should have the ability to up and kill himself. That in my perspective is taking an easy way out for something that is worth a tremendous amount. However, the few people with a deadly illness or cancer that can no longer fight the pain or perhaps unresponsive should be given that option. Just because we have the ability to be euthanized does
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
Imagine being diagnosed with a disease that is going to kill you, but then you learn that you cannot do anything to avoid the pain it will cause you. The palliative care you will receive will only be able to provide slight comfort. You look at the options and consult with your physician, and decide physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is what you want. Within the last two decades, the argument regarding physician-assisted suicide has grown. While some believe that death should be "natural", physician-assisted suicide helps the terminally ill maintain their dignity while dying. Physician assisted suicide should be a viable option for those diagnosed with a terminal illness. It provides a permanent relief to the pain and suffering that is involved
Although physician assisted suicide may result in the fulfillment of another’s choice, be considered a compassionate means to end suffering, or even be considered a right, I believe it is not morally acceptable. In the act of physician assisted suicide, a patient voluntarily requests his or her doctor to assist in providing the means needed for self-harm. In most cases of physician assisted suicide, patients who request this type of assistance are terminally ill and mentally competent (i.e. have sufficient understanding of an individual’s own situation and purpose and consequences of any action). Those who have committed the action of physician assisted suicide or condone the act may believe that one has the right to end their own life, the right of autonomy (the right or condition of self governing), the right to a dignified death, believe that others have a duty to minimize suffering, or believe it (physician assisted suicide) to be a compassionate act, or a combination of these things. However, since this act violates the intrinsic value of human life, it is not morally acceptable.
...le pain to both the patient and to their families. One procedure, known as Physician-Assisted suicide, alleviates suffering by having a physician provide a patient the means to painlessly kill him or herself. This procedure however, remains controversial and illegal in many states. This is unfair to patients who wish to be assisted in seeking death and escaping their terminal illness. Despite all of the benefits that are brought about because of Physician-Assisted suicide, people across America still seek to ban the practice because it clashes with personal moral and ethical beliefs. Although many people disagree with the procedure of Physician-Assisted suicide, it should still become legal because it alleviates suffering, allows patients to die in a dignified manner, and allows people to take control of the ultimate choice, death, away from their terminal illness.
Up to 8.5% of terminally ill patients express a sustained and persuasive for an early death (Marks and Rosielle). Terminally ill patients have long lasting, painful deaths and they should have the option of assisted suicide so they don’t have to go through that. Assisted suicide is when a patient writes a written request to a doctor and after two days the doctor can prescribe lethal drugs to the patient (Engber). The doctor can’t administer them himself, that would be euthanasia, the patients has to take them him or herself (Engber). Assisted suicide should be legal because it ends patient's suffering and pain, and it is their individual right to determine their own fate.
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option, if requested, for terminally ill patients. For decades the question has been asked and a clear answer has yet to surface. It was formed out of a profound commitment to the idea that personal end-of-life decisions should be made solely between a patient and a physician. Can someone's life be put into an answer? Shouldn't someone's decision in life be just that; their decision? When someone has suffered from a car accident, or battled long enough from cancer, shouldn't the option be available? Assisted suicide shouldn't be seen as cheating death, but as a way to pay homage to the life once lived. As far as including the mentally challenged in this equation, I am against it. The mentally challenged, although less likely to grasp information, still has the physical awareness to grow. It can be subdued with medicine and psychotherapy. From personal experience I am a witness of being around mentally challenged adults who love life regardless of their conditions. Most don't have the ability to express a request such as life or death. Living life is a daily task just like it is for healthy citizens. Most if not all mentally challenged people aren't in any pain throughout their entire life. For this they shouldn't be targeted for assisted suicide. Death is an occurrence in life, whether it's unexpected or expected, it can't be cheated nor can it be avoided. The terminally ill should have the option to end their suffering with dignity.
Physicians Assisted Suicide An Argumentative Essay Physicians Assisted suicide is a topic many people are not fully informed about. Physician assisted suicide, or PAS for short, is when a physician can legally prescribe medicine for a patient to take in order to medically kill themselves. I believe that PAS should be talked more about in order for more people to understand how bad or grave it can be to a family and to our world. PAS falls underneath the umbrella of euthanasia. ?
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because